Talk:Tom Willett/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tom Willett

In the interest of deterring any confusion between this article and the previously deleted article: Tom Willett, in my research on the actor Tom Willett, subject of this BLP page, I came across the WP article on a separate Tom Willett that seemed dubious in several aspects from existence to questionable content to unreliable sources. I placed that article up for AfD and the consensus was voted: delete. The article that has presently been created is on the actor, singer-songwriter and YouTuber Tom Willett, aka "Featureman"; whose sources are reliable and content without question. The two are not the same. I hope this clears up any confusion. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Legal Issues

I have reverted the recently addition by user Ishnolead: [1]. Such claims need substantial reliable sourcing. I cannot find any sources to back the claim found in this source provided: [2] Which seems dubious. Until such claims came be reliably sources without contest, this content should be seen as vandalism and a violation of BLP policy at WP. The image file also has no RS claim. The image was "manufactured" by the same editor and does not cite any newspaper. I will be putting it up for deletion. I believe all of this to be a hoax. Maineartists (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Per the discussion at Help Desk, the source provided is not reliable for such a claim. Continually citing the same source does not constitute reliable sourcing. For such content to be added without contest, there needs to be numerous reliable sources to back the claim. The image also is not reliable. The newspaper and article from which the image was retrieved needs to accompany the image and description to be deemed credible. Maineartists (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Unbelievable. So instead of working with myself and others to ensure the accuracy of the sources, everything is assumed to be a "hoax". The Las Vegas Review Journal articles are almost 50 years old and not part of an accessible online archive. I had to go to great lengths to find them myself. The Justia case is easily accessible and fact-checked, and matches the information found in the cited article. I would be happy to work with you to correctly insert all of the source material I have onto the page. I can send you all of the articles, photos, etc. to prove their existence. Like I mentioned, I am not an expert with Wikipedia editing. The public deserves to know about this case. The swift actions towards deletion indicate that an effort to cover Mr. Willett from scrutiny, as he enjoys popularity on social media with a fan base. Ishnolead (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to with fandom or non-belief. It has to do with Wikipedia policy when it comes to BLP subjects. Plain and simple. I also never said I wouldn't work with you. If you have reliable sources (please read here: WP:RS) then simply link them here on this Talk Page. It is simple to link online sources. You keep referring to articles, photos, etc but you have yet to produce any other than the Justia. You cited this: Ebbels, Gary (29 December 1976). "Child Haven Homosexual Act Testimony". But did not link it to an actual source except the WP article on Las Vegas Review Journal. This is considered WP:OR. I do not know how to be more clear. Find online sources. We can go from there. Maineartists (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The articles are not online. I have photographs of them, which I can share with you. But the articles themselves cannot be accessed online. I have the dates to accompany them, hence why I cited the Ebbels article without a link. There has to be some way in which non-digital articles can be cited. Other Wikipedia pages have done similar citations which is what I based mine off of. Ishnolead (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are citing articles, magazines, periodicals that cannot be accessed online, you need to provide a Template to Cite News, Template to Cite Magazine, etc. The Justia link does not state who the "Thomas Willett" is for it to be included in this article of a BLP subject. That is why this claim needs multiple sources to fill in all the necessary claims so that it is not contested. Fill out all the necessary information on the Templates for each source. You can quote from those sources if you cite them. Hope this helps. Maineartists (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Yonhope (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

May I ask why you claim this has nothing to do with fandom, yet your account was the one to create this Wikipedia page? Ishnolead (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Yonhope Is there a reason why you responded "Thanks" to this thread in my reply addressed to Ishnolead? Maineartists (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yonhope is Tom Willett! See this: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1650932/

Not sure if that is proof enough but it's pretty obvious. Ishnolead (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is his user page: https://www.imdb.com/user/ur2808701/?ref_=rw Ishnolead (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ishnolead I understand that you are new here. I am not trying to work against you in any way. But, IMDB is not a reliable source WP:CITINGIMDB. There is no way of actually proving that the IMDB user is the actual Tom Willett as anyone can create and upload content to the database. Yes, it is extremely coincidental. I will at the very least place a COI tag on this article, contact the user on their Talk Page, and keep a close watch. In the meantime, I hope you are gathering the necessary information for the above mentioned templates. Maineartists (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Removing the photo from the conversation, how many newspaper articles/website would suffice for reliability? Ishnolead (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure you need to remove the image from the conversation. If this content is deemed reliable and notable for inclusion, then the image should be allowed. The problem that you face is proving notability for inclusion. The incident is 45 years old and has not been mentioned since. It is not a notable incident that is associated with the subject. If it was, then there would be a continuation through the 45 years following the BLP's life and career in media, press, news coverage, etc i.e Roman Polanski. The onus is heavily placed on you to provide enough RS to prove that this is still relevant enough for inclusion. Yes, it may have happened, and yes, if it did it is horrible; but there are hundreds if not thousands of BLPs with incidents that are not covered here at WP simply because they are non-notable, isolated, without continued coverage, etc. For instance, at Sally Struthers page, her 2012 drunk driving incident in Ogunquit was introduced because at the time it was headlining. (I am not in anyway comparing drunk driving to the severity of this incident.) I'm just pointing out that it was removed based on WP:RECENTISM due to the fact that it was not an incident that would follow her life or be associated with her career. Addressing your question, there is no particular number of sources that constitutes reliability. But in this case, more is always better. Especially when it involves this sort of topic regarding a BLP. Citing the same source over again as you did in your first edit does not present a strong case. It only summarizes that one source and not the content you are trying to introduce. Think of it this way: for every line of new information, provide a reliable source. Maineartists (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The notoriety factor is moot because Tom Willett was not a public figure at the time. His filmography and YouTube career takes place AFTER this case. With Polanski or any other celebrity, they had attained public figure status prior to their criminal activity. Mark Wahlberg committed horrible crimes in his youth, which were uncovered after he began acting-is this not analogous? The same goes for any politician, athlete, etc. who had criminal pasts before their careers. This crime took place in an era before the internet, and therefore did not disseminate over time. Had there never been an appeal in 1978, which became a precedent ruling in Nevada, we would not be having this conversation.

From what you have described, this would not be notable because it is 45 years old. Unfortunately, I think I am fighting a losing battle here, and will pursue a more streamlined way of informing the public. I understand you created the Tom Willett page, and Tom himself is directly involved in suppressing this, so I'll refrain from making additional edits on the page. Once more people are aware, hopefully someone else can try to navigate this web of rules. But you cannot cover this up forever. Ishnolead (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is covering anything up. If you would like, we can get more eyes on this discussion. You can bring it up on other forums and invite them to join in. But other editors are going to require the same RS and ask the same questions. Yes I created this page. But I have absolutely no connection with the subject. My only investment, like any other WP editor, is to make sure that the content is reliable and cannot be contested. Plain and simple. I never said it was not notable because it was 45 years old. I only said it would be difficult to introduce it. That's all. What you are confusing with Mark Wahlberg and Willett is that Wahlberg's crimes have followed him and can easily be accessed by reliable sources that are related to the subject in present day coverage. The incidents have followed his life and career enough to be continually covered. All of the reliable sources on the Wahlberg page are sources that covered the incidents decades after; since they are still relevant. Walhberg has a long history of criminal offenses that make up a very large part of his notability enough to be included in his article. You have yet to introduce additional reliable sources for this article. If you would simply do this, then maybe editors such as myself could work with you to create a section notable enough for inclusion. As it stands, you have only submitted an uploaded image without proper sourcing and a link to Justia. You claim to have photographs of several articles on this incident from 45 years ago that cannot be found online. Simply fill out the templates from the links provided and we can go from there. Last, I think you are confused as to my comparison to Polanski. Polanski's fame became associated with his crime and vice versa. Once Willett became famous, if his crime was notable, it should have followed his career; similar to Wahlberg. Then we would have the online sources even 45 years later to cite here at WP. Maineartists (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Maineartists, you should be aware that Tom posted a video confessing (not in complete detail, but confessing nonetheless) to the veracity of the articles. So I would anticipate the inclusion of this information at some point in the future. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp-EEs-DYf0 Ishnolead (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ishnolead I have welcomed other editors at BLP Noticeboard to assist in this discussion. I hope this will prove that I have no ulterior motives one way or the other. Maineartists (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

In further researching the two provided sources, it will be difficult to introduce the two contrasting stories found within each source. First, the newspaper article submitted as a separate image here [3] which states: "His victim ... said Willett assaulted him on three occassions in November and December 1973. As a volunteer worker, Willett had the authority to check boys in and out of Child Haven. The youth ... testified Willett assaulted him once in his cabin, once at a drive-in movie and once at Willett's home." The same article can be found here: Review Journal Newsbank. The link to the online article was provided by Watchsmart on this Talk Page but deleted by the same editor, for whatever reason. While the Justia link states: "The record shows that appellant (Willett) in November, 1973, while playing in a musical group volunteered to entertain the children at Child Haven in Las Vegas. There he met the victim of this crime, a minor boy. He went with the boy to his room to introduce him to the guitar, but the session ended in the first of several acts of oral copulation on the minor." These are two very different and conflicting stories. Other reliable sources would need to be provided to clear up these discrepancies. Maineartists (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I deleted the link because I decided I really don't want to get into this conversation. Too traumatic. Sorry, I should have mentioned that instead of just deleting my comment right away. Watchsmart (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Note, we cannot use the JUSTIA document on its own per WP:BLPPRIMARY, which forbids using trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. The Newsbank articles might be accessible by library card holders in Clark County, and would likely be available to anyone with a subscription to the newspaper(s) in question. Assuming they all refer to the same person, the issue is how much info on this should be included, if at all, per WP:PROPORTION and WP:DUE. Mere verifiablity does not guarantee inclusion. We've previously removed teenage arrests of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for instance, because they aren't relevant to his biography, but clearly the content here is more serious. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Also @Ishnolead:, you have asserted "the public deserves to know about this case" as well as "I think it is important for the public to be aware of this case as it contradicts Mr. Willett's public persona". Please note that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, an explanatory essay on guidelines, which states: "You might think that Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that is absolutely not the case." Wikipedia is not an investigative journalism outlet, and by policy not a place for everything, even if it's true. The bare minimum threshold for any of this to be considered for inclusion is an unambiguous connection made by reliable, published, secondary sources that the subject of this article is the same as the person involved in the 1970s legal issue. We cannot use original research or synthesis of disparate sources to infer or conclude they are the same person, no matter how obvious it may appear. And if no reliable sources have mentioned the legal matters since the 1970s, then that shows they carry very little weight, regardless of the seriousness of the charges. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe that is a strange (at best) bar to meet, especially considering the immense role context plays in situations like these. However, I have stated multiple times that I am not interested in making further edits to the page. These discussion sections can serve as a helpful references for others in the future. Ishnolead (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

@Yonhope In revisiting this page on a separate topic, I have noticed that you have continually made disruptive edits i.e. changing content that is backed by reliable sources: dates, education, descriptive wording, etc. Please note that continued editing in such a manner may get you temporarily blocked from this article. I will be reverting all edits that are not sourced properly or are in direct contradiction to the already cited sources within the article. Your username shows that you are only editing this article. Is there a reason? Maineartists (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Continued disruptive edits

In response to the above comment by Ishnolead (26 April 2023): I have no idea why you would think this so-called YouTube video would matter to me as an editor here at WP. A deleted YouTube video by the subject that was re-uploaded by another channel, with no corroboration of the subject referencing the "veracity of the articles" in keeping with the aforementioned accusations, does not provide justification that "inclusion of this information (will be introduced) at some point in the future". It is, however, revealing that a channel that was created in March 2023, with only 5 subscribers, and only this one particular copied video (as you state: deleted by the subject) with comments that reference specifically the agenda at this article and Talk Page (... "will pursue a more streamlined way of informing the public") seems highly suspicious toward a continued intent for inclusion. As I have said since the beginning, I have no particular interest in this subject at all. I could care less if the content is included or not. I am simply following WP policy; as are other editors who have already commented on this and edited appropriately above. Currently, the page has been semi-protected. I doubt the YouTube video has contributed anything toward consensus support for inclusion. Please read the above comments by other WP editors again. Maineartists (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The man himself recorded corroboration of his conviction and it is public record 67.198.117.6 (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to argue the points made by other WP editors above again: WP:PROPORTION, WP:DUE, WP:VNOT. To address this statement: "The man himself recorded corroboration of his conviction". The only "corroboration" would be that he was arrested, tried, convicted and his sentence was overturned centering around (in the BLP's own words from the video) "201.190 charge regarding public decency / intimate relationship with other people in public") No where does he corroborate the specific nature of the content currently trying to be introduce at this article. Also, it does not overrule the usage of trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. The video is still WP:PRIMARY sourcing. It would need far more additional coverage that has been established here. We've been through this all before. Other editors can weigh in from here on. Please direct your comments to them. Maineartists (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

A few things:

- So Tom Willett, himself, admitting to his trial and conviction is not enough?

- As for the YouTube channel, I suppose you're insinuating I own it. I do not, and merely shared it with you because Tom Willett deleted his video. Had his link been active, I would have used that one. Of the re-uploaded versions I could find, the one you saw had the best quality.

- Who cares what the video comments say? They are immaterial. If people are upset or angry, or defensive and ambivalent, it does not change the video content.

- As I've stated previously, both you and Tom are directly involved in suppressing this. Even if you use the "just following orders" justification, it doesn't solve the situation. Hopefully you see the value in the inclusion of the material, but that sadly does not appear to be the case.

As I've stated multiple times, I have no interest in editing the page further. Sharing the video with you was an action done to inform (the article author) of a development with the subject. That's all. Hopefully this talk page can remain a forum for future discussion. Ishnolead (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ishnolead If you continue to accuse me of false intent here at WP ("both you and Tom are directly involved in suppressing this"), I will be forced to report you. That being said, to show you that I have no ulterior motive at this article (by the way, I "started" this article because I believed the BLP subject had created his own article at WP and filled it with erroneous and promotional content. I placed it for AfD and created this one that met WP policy and guidelines) I will remove this article and its Talk Page from my watchlist. If the content you wish to add is really notable and verifiable, then WP:ONUS is on you to gather consensus via other WP editors, not me. I wish you the best of luck. Maineartists (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok tough guy. You should be ashamed of yourself & you deserve to be reported. 107.119.41.79 (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to report me, if you would like. I stand by my statements and would welcome a third party review. Ishnolead (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The controversy and crimes he committed should be included in his page at some point soon 2601:188:CF00:4380:8964:75BA:6EC8:7976 (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

As an outsider neutral party who usually just lurks in talk pages, I believe the page should be edited, but I also notice that you act like you have some sort of personal or emotional attachment, the editors in this page, mostly @Ishnolead have been very kind and patient explaining to you all the many things that need to be done in order to follow the rules, and in my opinion you have acted disrispectfuly about it. I myself am not an editor so I can't help with it but I just wanted to intervene to let you know that this doesn't look good for the credibility of your statements to us who are reading this from a neutral POV. I have watched videos on the topic so I do believe the claims personally, but a topic so important should be taken care of in a proper way, I believe you are harming your cause by acting rude to the editor team, especially the whole cover up and other accusations about someone who looks like an established editor with no conections to the page, the whole paranoia thing just looks like someone who is acting like the end justifies the means, and in a childish way if I may say so. Maybe you could ask in reddit or somewhere else for help understanding how wikipedia editing works? I might give it a try if this doesn't get settled in the near future but I don't have time right now. It would be useful though if you share with us all the sources in this talk page so other people can validate them.

I also think it's relevant to point out there's been coverage from large youtubers, if this goes to mainstream media then its notoriety should be more than enough to mention it as "allegations", im not quite sure if general internet controversy is good enough though, but thats an angle you might be able to use: to say theres been allegations by x and y (if its enough for it to be according to the rules) and to mention the kind of evidence presented by them, but usually the problem i see a lot of people have is using wikipedia to validate a specific narrative or worldview due to its narrativizing and authoritative role in how some people take information as true. So that is why the editors are asking you to not say things that are not 100% verified by other people, because it would not be a reliable website if all it took for articles to say prescritive statements was accusations by individuals or circumstantial evidence. So a way i am under the impression is okay is by being descriptive instead, if the notoriety of the allegations are good enough then you should say what the allegations are without making it sound like wikipedia itself is saying those allegations are true, and if a number of credible enough sources say this youtuber is the same person with that name and those specific crimes then the redaction can be adjusted to make that clear Dayofthecope (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

sorry, i meant @Maineartists as the editor who has been patient, I got mixed up when tagging because i forgot to tag the person my message was directed towards Dayofthecope (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your viewpoint and contribution to the conversation. I'm all for better understanding how editing works. I'm a complete novice at this and welcome anyone with knowledge on Wiki editing to take charge. However, the reason I feel strongly about this is due to the response from @Maineartists, and the context of the subject matter.

I cannot speculate on who they are, and will not result to baseless name calling, as others have now. I do, however, stand by my accusation that they are suppressing this information, even if they are doing so indirectly and without prejudice.

Here are some direct quotes from @Maineartists regarding this situation that I find concerning.

- 2/20/23, in relation to the addition of sources of Willett's arrest: "I believe all of this to be a hoax".

- 2/21/23: "The problem that you face is proving notability for inclusion. The incident is 45 years old and has not been mentioned since. It is not a notable incident that is associated with the subject." Here I can perhaps understand the "red tape" behind proving inclusion, but these crimes are of such a severe nature that there ought to be provisions in place to support their inclusion regardless of notoriety.

- 2/22/23: "Once Willett became famous, if his crime was notable, it should have followed his career" Things get covered up all the time, and come to light later. Come on.

- 4/26/23: "As I have said since the beginning, I have no particular interest in this subject at all. I could care less if the content is included or not." I find this difficult to agree with based on the above conversation.

- 4/26/23: "The only "corroboration" would be that he was arrested, tried, convicted and his sentence was overturned centering around (in the BLP's own words from the video) "201.190 charge regarding public decency / intimate relationship with other people in public") No where does he corroborate the specific nature of the content currently trying to be introduce at this article."

Really? He would seriously have to spell out every single detail of his crimes for the inclusion of the articles? I understand there must be some burden of proof, but this seems excessive.

Finally, something that has largely been glossed over is the fact that Tom himself @Yonhope was caught editing his own article. Go back through the edit history and you will see his attempts to edit the language of a since-removed "Legal Issues" section. While you technically cannot prove this 110%, he uses the same username on several forums, including IMDB, where he states in his bio "Retired actor, musician and singer I make videos for YouTube using the name Featureman." I appreciated @Maineartists taking notice and action on this point.

Ultimately, my issue is with the efforts to stall the inclusion of this information, for whatever reason. Tom Willett was erroneously listed as having a college education on this page for MONTHS, and no one took notice. Once legal issues were included, there were swift reactions. Ishnolead (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It's very concerning to see Wiki admins being so eager to hide the fact that a Youtuber who makes content for children on the internet is a convicted child molester and rapist. 141.193.188.133 (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't really think there's any malice to it but they definitely need to include this as a controversy section. NeS Program (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Having just read this thread, and as a non-editor and sometimes lurker of talk pages. I just want to say it's crazy to me that this hasn't been included in some form on the page. Nevermind qualifying it based on "the public deserves to know" type considerations, this IS notable and I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise, especially now that the story has gained traction through YouTuber intervention. The crimes he committed are certainly as "notable" as the YouTuber himself, frankly I was surprised to see he even had a Wikipedia page to begin with. . . Standlaunchpad (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This is really insane ... It really feels like this should be included. The editors trying so hard to exclude this info is very sus to say the least 76.67.108.138 (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Bump this thread, and Info concealing admin. I had to go to great lengths to find any of this info due to the coverup taking place. 2600:1700:767E:F810:1D6A:B9C3:2959:E76E (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Withholding of Information

I am curious as to why information regarding the legal past of this man is being omitted. Erroneous edits containing questionable sources are one thing, but Tom himself released a (now deleted) YouTube video admitting to, at the very least, accusations made against him in 1977. The accusations that have come to light in the age of social media over recent weeks have been of, what I would consider, irreparable detriment to his YouTube channel, to the point where information regarding his viewership and subscriber count aren't being accounted for.

I would consider the withheld information, at the very least, beneficial to the factual accuracy of the article, as this has most certainly ended his YouTube career. It takes a simple search on YouTube of 'featureman' to see the aftermath of these allegations, to the point other content creators trump his own account in the search results. As an 18-year editor/lurker on this website, this is the only article in recent memory that, at the very least, doesn't include a Controversies section for alleged misconducts. [wossi] 01:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your input @Wossi. A lot of the roadblocks have been with the source material, but Tom's corroboration should solve any policy issues. I too want the facts included, not accusations and trolling. Any additional advice would be appreciated. Ishnolead (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't. If a removed YT-video is the best you got, WP:PROPORTION is far away. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I hope better than "a removed YT -video" is his 1978 court case document (Google this text to find):

584 P.2d 684 (1978)

Thomas WILLETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.

No. 9767.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

September 28, 1978.

Morgan D. Harris, Clark County Public Defender, and James B. Gibson, Deputy, Public Defender, Las Vegas, then Manos & Cherry, Las Vegas, for appellant.

Robert List, Atty. Gen., Carson City, George E. Holt, Dist. Atty., and H. Leon Simon, Chief Appellate Deputy Dist. Atty., and L.J. O'Neale, Deputy Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

A jury found appellant Thomas Willett guilty of three counts of violation of NRS 201.190, the infamous crime against nature. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole on each count with the terms to run concurrently. The sentences were suspended and appellant was placed on probation for a period not to exceed five years with the first year to be served in the Clark County jail. He seeks reversal of his judgment of conviction on the principal ground that the court erred in admitting testimony concerning his illicit sexual relationship with another person other than the victim in the instant case.

1. The record shows that appellant in November, 1973, while playing in a musical group volunteered to entertain the children at Child Haven in Las Vegas. There he met the victim of this crime, a minor boy. He went with the boy to his room to introduce him to the guitar, but the session ended in the first of several acts of oral copulation on the minor. During the same month appellant visited the Eddie Lee Home for boys in Clark County. There he met a minor boy who testified that while the defendant, a volunteer worker, was "helping us to set up for Christmas", the defendant performed an act of oral copulation upon the young man. This testimony was admitted during the State's case-in-chief, and it is the admission of this testimony upon which the appellant seeks reversal of his judgment of conviction.

Appellant, in seeking reversal, relies heavily on Nester v. State, 75 Nev. 41, 334 P.2d 524 (1959), and narrows his argument to that part of the opinion regarding proof of other crimes:

It is a rule of criminal evidence that, on the trial of a person accused of crime, proof of a distinct independent offense is inadmissible. As exceptions to this general rule, evidence of other crimes is competent to prove the specific crime charged when it tends to establish (1) motive; (2) intent; *685 (3) the absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others; (5) the identity of the person charged with commission of the crime on trial.

75 Nev. at 76, 334 P.2d at 527.

The facts in Nester concerned a charge of forcible rape. The State introduced evidence of a similar, but not identical, rape that was committed by that defendant six months after the rape charged. The evidence was properly admitted to prove the identity of the rapist.

In the case at hand, the sexual acts committed on the victim and the witness were close in time, both occurring in November of 1973; the circumstances were similar, both were minors in homes for boys; and the modus operandi was the same, both boys were approached while the defendant worked as a "volunteer" at their institutions. This case is squarely within the fourth exception of the criteria listed in Nester, that is, to show "a common scheme or plan".

The rule in Nester is codified at NRS 48.045(2), which states,

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

This statute was cited by this court in Allan v. State, 92 Nev. 318, 321, 549 P.2d 1402 (1976). Allan also concerned the infamous crime against nature committed upon a minor. Allan's plan or scheme was to invite children to his house trailer, show them a pornographic film, and seduce the children. On the evening of the act for which he was charged, there were three minor boys present. Although Allan was charged only with committing the infamous crime with one, the two other boys testified, during the prosecution's case-in-chief, that Allan committed the same act on them. That evidence was properly admitted as part of the res gestae.

This court earlier this year, in McMichael v. State, 94 Nev. 184, 577 P.2d 398, 401 (1978), adopted the language of the Arizona Supreme Court:

Upholding in a prosecution for fellatio, case-in-chief testimony of boys other than those with whom defendant was charged with having committed the acts, the court in State v. McDaniel, 80 Ariz. 381, 298 P.2d 798 (1956), said: Certain crimes today are recognized as stemming from a specific emotional propensity for sexual aberration. The fact that in the near past one has given way to unnatural proclivities has a direct bearing upon the ultimate issue whether in the case being tried he is guilty of a particular unnatural act of passion. The importance of establishing this fact far outweighs the prejudicial possibility that the jury might convict for general rather than specific criminality. Even granting the general rule of inadmissibility of evidence of independent crimes to prove the offense charged, many courts recognize a limited exception in the area of sex crimes to prove the nature of the accused's specific emotional propensity.

Id. [298 P.2d] at 802-03. Accord, State v. Miller, 115 Ariz. 279, 564 P.2d 1246 (1977); State v. McFarlin, 110 Ariz. 225, 517 P.2d 87 (1973); People v. Covert, 249 Cal. App. 2d 81, 57 Cal. Rptr. 220 (1967); compare, Allan v. State, 92 Nev. 318, 549 P.2d 1402 (1976).

We do not believe the district judge in the case before us abused his discretion in admitting the witness' testimony. The court, in a pretrial hearing and in a hearing without the presence of the jury, balanced the proffered testimony against its probative value, NRS 48.035; Brown v. State, 81 Nev. 397, 404 P.2d 428 (1965), and then determined that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect. We cannot rule, based on the facts presented, that the lower court abused its discretion. Therefore, we affirm appellant's judgment of conviction. 2603:6010:B000:4C0:1F3:2FBD:E73E:5668 (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Like Tristario says slightly below, WP:BLPPRIMARY stops us from using that atm. You may find Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tom_Willett interesting. We don't use WP:SPS sources like WP:MEDIUM either. "Best" would be something like CNN noticing this and writing about it. But the good news is, that even if WP tried to withhold this info from you, you found it anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I commented about this at WP:BLPN, but I'll also leave a comment here for the record. We have strict policies about writing about living people on wikipedia, especially if it concerns contentious material and crime. Per the guidance in WP:BLP, we need strong secondary sources (per WP:BLPPRIMARY we can't use public documents) directly supporting this content and in a manner that clearly and without any doubt indicates it's the exact same person. If we don't have that, this content shouldn't be in this article. Tristario (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Retaining Previous Crime and Controversy

Why is this man's legal history being left out of this article? Incorrect modifications based on questionable sources are on thing, but Tom's 'accusations' that have emerged in recent weeks via social media have brought unquestionable light into the situation, and this specific case has a lot of references in the court system, and Harvard Law has confirmed that this case is undeniably real.

Willett was convicted of sexually assaulting three young boys who were minors in November of 1977. It is commendable that the victims were able to come forward and that the legal system was able to hold Willett accountable for his actions. Based on the available information from the sources found below, we can conclude that Willett's actions were real. His actions were heinous and unacceptable, and his conviction was a necessary step in holding him accountable for his crimes.

Side node: Willett was also charged with violating NRS 201.190, which criminalized sexual acts between persons of the same sex.

https://casetext.com/case/willett-v-state-6 https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/willett-v-state-no-889215008 https://cite.case.law/nev/94/620/ https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/1978/9767-1.html#:~:text=A%20jury%20found%20appellant%20Thomas,the%20terms%20to%20run%20concurrently. 2601:198:C17F:AAC0:8D7F:297A:AE55:962A (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not intended to be a database for any and all information about every person of any note. There are very clear guidelines for what information can be added, those guidelines have been referenced throughout this talk section. Lostsandwich (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hall Monitor Syndrome

I think this whole situation is indicative of a widespread case of hall monitor syndrome. I have been using Wikipedia for years, and am extremely disappointed with how dense and Kafkaesque these policies and procedures are. They do not benefit the editor. What is important, I suppose, is the public can now become informed on this case, without the aid of Wikipedia. I'm sure this information will be added at some point. Hope you editors are happy, the world is a better place with you in it! 149.61.245.75 (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Add picture of Tom Willett

Yonhope, who identifies himself as Tom Willett, uploaded 4 pictures to Wikimedia Commons last year. It would be nice if someone could add one of them to the infobox. I think File:Tom Willett wearing a police uniform.jpg or File:Tom Willett from a 1980s cowboy promo head shot.jpg are the best choices since they are front-facing head shots. Thank you. MrPinkingShears (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Added. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. MrPinkingShears (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I have changed the image to File:Tom Willett as a priest (cropped).jpg as I think it looks better because there's not a massive cowboy hat on top of his head which takes up half the image. Ollieisanerd (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

That one can be seen as a little ironic per current discussions. Oh well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ollieisanerd The picture you used does not show the subject accurately. His head is tilted down, which makes his forehead look larger and his chin look smaller. We should use a picture that shows the subject's face accurately. I'm sorry if you don't like the cowboy hat, but it is the best picture we have. Can you change it back? Thanks. MrPinkingShears (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@MrPinkingShears Fine, I've changed it back, but someone's going to have to crop it to remove the "TOM WILLETT" writing at the bottom. Ollieisanerd (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Molestation of numerous minors

Why are you hiding information on this. This is why nobody takes this site seriously anymore. You should all be ashamed of yourselves 75.170.115.44 (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP is why. It's up to you to find acceptable sources, WP:RS, if you want this in the article. If such sources don't exist, we'll wait. See earlier discussions on this talkpage and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tom_Willett. Think Washington Post, The New York Times or at the very least The Daily Advance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I could not respectfully disagree with you more. I guess an actual court case is not a good enough source for information on Tom Willett. I can't believe you would call mainstream news outlets more reputable than websites on U.S. Law. You do realize we could literally have people come on here to learn about Tom Willett and think he is actually a good person because of this monstrous incompetency. Theavgrsnathan (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

There are other sources of info than WP, I saw an on-topic YT video with 750 000 views, I think. But no, atm the court case is not usable per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Feel free to join the BLPN discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Withholding information

Is there a reason the public is being kept from knowing information about this man? 2601:403:4202:26E0:6995:FFC7:45F1:E375 (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

As you can see on the rest of this talkpage, the public has plenty of information. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Noting

I just made this revert:[4] Apart from that WP doesn't care about his falling subscriber numbers unless a decent WP:RS does, It's not "Tom" in WP-article text, and "Tom" is contrary to reverted edit still uploading videos, like he did on May 12:[5]. Comments inactivated on that one though, for some reason. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång That appears to be a different YouTube channel than the one linked in the article. Should "Featureman Stocks" be included here as well? MrPinkingShears (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, I think I saw a general discussion that concluded it was reasonable to stick with "main" channels per spirit of WP:ELMIN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I see it's mentioned in the article: "Willett continues to make videos regularly on various topics that range anywhere from stock tips". With "be included" i thought you meant infobox or EL-section, but maybe you didn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Reliable source updates a 2020 profile to include criminal history

The Nashville Scene has updated its 2020 article, "People Issue 2020: YouTube Sensation Tom Willett"

• https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/coverstory/people-issue-2020-youtube-sensation-tom-willett/article_fd6a2dd7-215a-5a2a-a368-30efb29d7a0b.html

I consider the Nashville Scene to be a reliable source.

They also link to the legal record (a primary source):

• https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/1978/9767-1.html

This was flagged by Wikipediocacy. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with the Nashville Scene, it's a widely read alternative newsweekly in Nashville. It's presently linked to 454 Wikipedia pages, mostly as references within articles. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I also consider Nashville Scene a reliable source of information. This Wikipedia article needs to be updated regarding his criminal history very soon. He does not deserve to look innocent, regardless of how long ago it was or his age. I feel disgusted for actually once supporting this person's YouTube content, thinking he was an innocent kind person. @Yonhope should be banned from Wikipedia for whitewashing his page. He's such a low-profile individual, I'm surprised he has a Wikipedia page. 2600:1700:6890:60D0:FD83:E536:2872:993A (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I irrevocably concur and this needs to be mentioned in the published page, at least to protect Wikipedia in the event that other minors are similarly abused because of information withheld from the published pages. 2806:102E:18:69E0:2503:CA55:AC30:4AF9 (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Whatever else Yonhope may have done, keeping the info out was the right thing to do when there were no reliable sources (which seems to have definitely been the case before Nashville Scene updated their article). If you disagree with this stance, then sorry but you can fuck off from BLPs. You are the ones who need to be at a minimum topic banned from all BLPs but frankly probably just site banned. Note that someone being a low profile individual is all the more reason why we need to be absolutely a stickler about requiring reliable sources and following BLP. While articles aren't intended to be promotional pieces, they definitely should not be hit pieces. If Tom Willett didn't meet our notability guidelines and there were no sources which covered him in sufficient detail for us to be able to write a balanced article, the solution would be to delete the article. It would not be to allow unreliable sources or otherwise violate BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Then delete the article. Hall monitors like yourself who are more concerned with upholding arbitrary rules might as well burn it all down. No info is better than whitewashed info. Ishnolead (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Start the WP:AFD whenever your ready. Hall monitor rules will probably apply. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey, at least you're honest about it. I've tried before to no avail. At this point I'm just glad it's out in the public, with or without Wikipedia. Ishnolead (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and WPO. I added something based on the Nashville Scene:[6]. I think there's an argument now that this "opens up" the old Las Vegas Review-Journal [7] articles (haven't read them) for WP-use, and perhaps also the WP:BLPPRIMARY courtcase, somewhat. WP:BLP and WP:PROPORTION still applies. Ping to @Maineartists, @Tristario, @Woodroar and @Nil Einne, if you have opinions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Nashville Scene looks like a reliable source, although we still can't use public documents per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Personally, I'd rather stick to contemporary sources, so that 1. We know it's WP:DUE, and 2. we're more certain that we've got the facts right. The Las Vegas Review-Journal articles might be usable. I'm not sure. In terms of WP:BLP I think this falls under WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, so the guidance there applies Tristario (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah no matter how many sources cover this, the court document can't be used as an exclusive source for anything. I've mentioned before that personally I'm not generally so fussed about using it as a supporting source/link for something already source to an RS, but not everyone agrees with this stance. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking we could perhaps use it for dates, but atm it may be easier not to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Should probably ping @A. B. too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The Las Vegas Review Journal is a reliable source as the daily newspaper of a major city. Nashville Scene is reliable.

Tom Willett is an entertainer and therefore a public figure. The idea in American law is not that the person is important or super-famous; it's that the person has chosen of an occupation or activity that involves being a public figure, implicitly understanding they'll be a figure for public comment. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. If this article allows Nashville Scene as a reference in 6 cited lines as a RS, it should also allow this updated content. This line: "Willett continues to make videos regularly on various topics that range anywhere from stock tips and original songs to cooking tutorials[7] and fast food reviews" is no longer applicable and should be removed since the BLP no longer "makes videos". In fact, it should be noted that the significant drop in subscribers and a drastic overhaul of their channel coincides directly with this newly discovered evidence; not to mention numerous videos that are now being made in response to this discovery. I do not feel that the newly added content should be placed in the career section, as "criminal history" had no effect on the BLPs actual career. It seems "buried" where it is currently. Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I see that you moved it "upward". I think it should have remained in either the relevant section (YouTube) or in a section all its own: Criminal history or Controversy. Lastly, now that the content is finally admissible, then the LVRJ coverage should also be admissable, as well. To state that the case was covered in this particular news publication at the time of the BLPs trial is not against WP policy. It introduces the proper cited sources for readers to investigate further if they so choose and supports the singular Nashville Scene source. Maineartists (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

He does still make videos:[8] but the sentence can be re-written per RS and MOS:DATED. In "Career" it fits/can fit chronologically, but it's not a good fit for YT-section since it pre-dates YT quite a bit. Separate section is an option. As before, the trouble with the social media-stuff is lack of sources. Unless decent RS comment on the social media reactions, his own and others, we have nothing acceptable to cite, it will either be SPS or primary YT readings/interpretations. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Checked the source and removed "Willett continues to make videos..." And made a section for the new stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. To be honest, (and I understand WP editors should remain non-subjective) I was shocked to think he was still making videos, given all that has happened. I see that you just added the section Life sentences, I'm not sure that is an actual WP section heading for content such as this. I may be wrong. It might read better either Criminal history or something to that effect. I understand RS commentary on YouTube reactions; but since statistics are being updated regularly, commentary on this decline does not warrant RS, does it? I say this because of this sentence: "Willett's channel had over 319K subscribers and as of October 2021 over 39 million views total." Perhaps this should be removed completely since the infobox now updates stats. Maineartists (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

On the current decline in wiewers, I think it does, that the decline somehow matters and deserves mention requires a secondary source who bothered to notice. Personally I don't think youtuber's infoboxes should include YT stats at all, it's just WP:PROMO and doesn't really say anything on it's own, but that's me. I suggested it on the Idea lab once, it didn't go anywhere.

On section heading, be WP:BOLD. Removed the YT-stat sentence, it was WP:PRIMARY anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

We should avoid WP:OR, and providing commentary on his subscriber stats would be doing that Tristario (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is there some on or off YT webpage that actually shows YT-viewership over time, like in a graph or table of numbers? Something like [9]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

There is Social Blade [10]. However I'm not sure of the accuracy of the numbers, and they may be distorted by things like deletion of videos Tristario (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. I guess we could add it as an EL. For the interested, here "we" are at Wikipediocracy:[11]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Who counts as a public figure is something that never seems exact. Strictly speaking, if we decided he was a public figure, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE we'd have to exclude this content entirely, since we don't have multiple third-party sources covering it. In the context I don't think he should be considered a public figure, however. Tristario (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

At a stretch, NS + the LVRJs can be considered "multiple." I haven't looked, but it's possible other than LVRJ covered back in the day. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

YT-stats updates

@Ollieisanerd I thought I read somewhere that these are/can be auto-updated via wikidata somehow, is that wrong? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You're probably right, I'm just not sure how to do that to be honest. Do you remember where you read that? Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 07:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz, I think I may have heard it from you? We're talking about the infobox. Anyone else informed, please weigh in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Sdkb:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube#Upcoming transition to automated updating of subscriber counts
Template talk:Infobox YouTube personality#Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube § Upcoming transition to automated updating of subscriber counts
Template talk:Infobox YouTube personality/Archive 1#Proposal: Move subscriber counts to Wikidata and update using bots
Module:YouTubeSubscribers was unable to read anything from Wikidata because he has two channels in P2397 which requires one to have the preferred rank for the module to work. I set one to preferred, but instead of reading P2397 the module now reads P8687. @BrokenSegue:? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Half the secret of being a Wikipedian is knowing who to ask. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz Is that why the number of subscribers in the infobox doesn't match [12]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry yeah it's confusing. The follower count is always read from P8687. We decide which value to read by looking at the most preferred value of P2397. It's more confusing than it should be. Sorry. BrokenSegue 05:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess that if this gadget doesn't work in this particular case, the reasonable thing is to remove it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

BrokenSegue, I see the bot now updated it so that's okay now. The issue was that the value for P8687 was more outdated than the value for P2397 when I made my edit. Strangely the bot doesn't update P2397. Seems like "number of subscribers" should be removed from P2397?.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, the bot updated the Wikidata item so it's up to date now. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

yeah the P2397 qualifier values are ignored. They should probably be removed as you said. BrokenSegue 16:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Including debate, also include both sides of debate

Wouldn’t it be appropriate to present the debate as long as one includes both sides of the debate? Along with material to support both sides? It’s OK to let the public know of the debate, correct? As long as neither one is claimed as factual, but rather, informative? 47.215.15.229 (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

What debate and what WP:BLP-good sources do you propose for what article-text? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)